Video Blog: The Case for Christ

I read, or more rather began reading the article. And DigiMark's pre-assessment is rather accurate... ermm

The unrefereed article is largely an exercise in flowery language, which if I were to ignore would eliminate most of the article, equivocation and argumentum ad ignorantiam. It references research literature, then tries to refute it with statements, referencing his own unrefereed articles and unrefereed books. It makes statements of what can and cannot occur before the Planck time and further what can and cannot occur outside of known spacetime, based on I don't know what. It would never be pass even the most lenient peer-review as rather than scientific, it is a subversion of scientific terms to fit a preconceived conclusion "God did it."

It also doesn't do anything in particular to dissuade me from my established perception of Hugh Ross, nor that mechanistic universal expansion requires no intervention.

I'm quite certain I've said it many times already, science does not deal with the supernatural. Science is not equipped to deal with the supernatural. Ross' assertion that he speaks on behalf of physicists and astronomers and that science not only proves a creator, but that it proves his particular variant of a creator, is fallacy - and it is that, that reveals Ross' writings as little more than propaganda.

(Oh and in advance dualist theories of quantum consciousness essentially can't be tested empirically as far as I'm aware, Digi.)

Don't you agree, that Dr. Ross's views are based on science?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Don't you agree, that Dr. Ross's views are based on science?

Even if science asserts that known spacetime has a beginning, it doesn't prove or disprove a creator, and it most certainly does not prove any particular variant of a creator. All it does is assert that known spacetime has a beginning.

xmarksthespot-

Hugh Ross is an Astronomer. And he wasn't always a "deist." It is science--not religion--that lead him to belief in a Creator, much like Anthony Flew. I agree; science is not in the business of answering questions concerning the supernatural "itself." Science is about "cause" and "effect" within the observable universe. And science, especially over the past 30 years, is amounting to evidences that allow scientists to speculate that the universe is the product of a supernatural "cause." Can we study the supernatural cause directly? No! But that is irrelevant! If I told you that a turtle typed this message and posted it on this thread, you'd think I was out of my mind. Why? Because this message requires "intelligence." Well, what is the evidence? You are reading the evidence. This message "itself" is proof that something "intelligent" wrote it, not a turtle (or even a lamp falling over on the key board). We can reach this conclusion by studying phenomena in the observable universe, not the supernatural. Don't you understand that?

That Hugh Ross is or was an astronomer means little to me (notwithstanding that it has been shown he misunderstands some seminal concepts of physics.) If you're attempting an argumentum ad verecundiam then I'd suggest you choose a better subject.

Regardless of whether you or Ross, or any other scientist, wish to speculate on a supernatural cause (for a system to which Kaläm syllogisms do not necessarily even apply) - as you're free to do - it will never be science, nor will it ever be supported by scientific findings - despite however much either you or Ross may wish to claim it is. And any scientist would or should realize that.

Science is not in the business of dealing with the supernatural.

As it stands we're walking down the same road as you and Digi did, and I'm quite aware that I'm unlikely to convince you of anything, as I would assume you're equally aware that I believe in the existence of deities as much as I believe in the existence of unicorns, that investigation into either is equally scientific, and that both deserve the same amount of time in a science class. So I really don't see the need for us to continue dancing this dance.

Originally posted by ushomefree
xmarksthespot-

Hugh Ross is an Astronomer. And he wasn't always a "deist." It is science--not religion--that lead him to belief in a Creator, much like Anthony Flew. I agree; science is not in the business of answering questions concerning the supernatural "itself." Science is about "cause" and "effect" within the observable universe. And science, especially over the past 30 years, is amounting to evidences that allow scientists to speculate that the universe is the product of a supernatural "cause." Can we study the supernatural cause directly? No! But that is irrelevant! If I told you that a turtle typed this message and posted it on this thread, you'd think I was out of my mind. Why? Because this message requires "intelligence." Well, what is the evidence? You are reading the evidence. This message "itself" is proof that something "intelligent" wrote it, not a turtle (or even a lamp falling over on the key board). We can reach this conclusion by studying phenomena in the observable universe, not the supernatural. Don't you understand that?

ok seriously ushomefree can you see the quote button or are you just selectively blind. LEARN TO CLICK IT GOD DAMN IT.

EDIT: science damn it.